Still seems goofy that the best reason you can think of for dealing with climate change is to stick it to the lefties. And, as I wrote, whatever your reason, let's do it. — T Clark

Goofy is what we got! Let's work with it! The trick is, the left's approach to sustainability is wrong, and yet they've convinced the right of its validity. The right are in denial of climate change because of what they imagine the implications would be, but in fact, need not be.

By virtue of physical facts, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. The energy is there - beneath our feet, limitless quantities of high grade power. As a consequence, there are no limits to resources, and the way to solve climate change is to power through.

Presumably, it will be easier to convince the right that the left are wrong in their approach to climate change; that we need more energy, not less, and to attack the problem from the supply side by the industrial scale application of technology - than it would be to convince even the greenest of lefties that they are mistaken, and a pro capitalist, prosperous and sustainable future is possible afterall!

Let me see if I understand. You're going to defeat the liberals by giving them what they want. Is that right? Boy, that'll teach 'em a lesson. They'll never know what hit 'em. — T Clark

A solution to climate change is not what the libs want though! Not really! I tried talking to Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg about solving climate change with magma energy, and they were not in the least interested. They protest against climate change, but it's really a cornerstone of that whole politically correct, anti-capitalist, middle class, woke white guilt paradigm they're pushing. I suggest proving the capitalist thesis by solving climate change, exploiting a freely available resource - magma energy, to the utmost extent, and yes, I think that would fundamentally undermine the green neo marxist, anti western platform.

there isn't a clear cut moral answer that we would all agree on, — Lif3r

Yes there is. We all know what the right thing to do is. If we didn't you couldn't pose the problem. We probably wouldn't do the right thing in those circumstances, but we'd know what we ought to do, morally speaking. It's implied by the question.

Phylogenetically you are right, but ontogentically, concerning humans, maybe not. — spirit-salamander

Any organism that has eyes has a brain, including our primitive ancestors. We had eyes before we had intellectual intelligence, that's true, but interestingly, there's no increase in cranial capacity evident at the point in time where human artefacts demonstrate the sudden occurrence of truly human intelligence. Cave painting, burial of the dead, jewellery, improved tools etc.

The brain came first. It is possible to have a central nervous system without eyes, but not possible to have eyes without a central nervous system.

The claim: aging, death, disease, cognitive infirmity and indeed involuntary suffering of any kind are wrong. A transhumanist civilization of superlongevity, superintelligence and superhappiness can overcome these ancient evils. If we act wisely, then future life will be sublime. — David Pearce

Maybe all that is possible, but there's a lot of science and technology needs developing before super-longevity could be sustainable. If the future is sublime or not, will not depend primarily on CRISPR. It will depend primarily on energy technology, carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation and recycling technology being applied first. Or do you suggest that people can be blissfully happy with the sky on fire?

Maybe that is your suggestion - and herein lies the question: how far would you go with the genetic toolkit to survive in a world where you've developed genetics to a fine art, but let the environment run to ruin? Alligator skin?

I'm morally continent. I'm not morally virtuous. I don't do right because it is good. I know the difference between right and wrong, and will generally choose to do right, and generally regret doing wrong, but circumstances dictate a great deal.

I'm not sure evil is a useful concept, but insofar as evil might be defined relative to the above, I think it requires malicious aforethought - that is, not merely knowingly doing wrong, but choosing to do wrong for the purpose of causing harm to others.

I agree with...



...above!

I also read and agree to a large extent, but would point to the fact that there is religion, politics, philosophy, law and economics, to morally regulate human behaviours. Sure, we may:

have the emotional drives of the chimp hitched to greatly enhanced intellectual power with which we carry out our red-hot urges with a vengeance. — Bitter Crank

..but would rather do so in a world where human behaviour is morally regulated. Hence the speculation that, people support law and order, not because they themselves need telling what to do, but as a control upon the behaviours of their fellow man.

200 years of capitalist progress has outpaced Malthus' pessimistic prophesies thus far, via the application of technology
— counterpunch

Thomas Malthus has been dead since 1834. Dead as a doornail. His famous book was written in 1798. Why is his old book your favorite touchstone for failed theories? Do you fault him for not thinking of everything that would happen in the future that might undermine his theory? — Bitter Crank

Malthus is not a failed theory. It has achieved enormous success. Malthus is the philosophical ancestor of limits to growth theory that underlies the West's entire approach to green issues. His Essay on Population suggested people would starve en masse because they breed faster than we can develop land to produce food. (In fact, we invented tractors and now, more people are better fed than ever.) Yet this "Malthusian pessimism" continues as the basis of limits to growth approaches to sustainability - an approach that also makes people the problem, when in fact people devise solutions that multiply resources.

The argument not being made is that capitalism can overcome this problem. I'm not blaming Malthus. I'm pointing out he was wrong, and for obvious reasons the left are blind to the fact, while the right retreat into denial. It's not necessary to hide from the climate and ecological crisis. History suggests we can solve this. The science suggests we can solve this. You tell me, why aren't we solving this?

How much energy is there in a cubic kilometre of rock heated to 700'C? — counterpunch

Rock has a heat capacity of 2000 Joules per kilogram per °C.

Rock weighs 3000 kg per cubic meter.

J=4200000000000

How much energy is there in a cubic kilometre of rock heated to 700'C?

I suggest the right solve climate change, and deny the left sustainability, used as an anti-capitalist battering ram. The right are in a position to attack this problem from the supply side and defeat it - because they have the investment capital and relationships with business to develop and apply the technological infrastructure to harness the massive heat energy of the earth, producing limitless electrical energy to produce hydrogen fuel, for carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation, and recycling, and so support sustainable capitalist growth going forward.

In my opinion, it's the only way it will work long term. It follows from the physics of energy and entropy that we need more energy to spend to strike a balance between human welfare and environmental sustainability. It's a plan more likely to appeal to the right than the left, for the left have identified very strongly with a "limits to growth" approach to sustainability, and seem to be planning a low energy future I don't believe would work long term, because it doesn't solve the problem. It retreats in face of it, while implying authoritarian government acting at odds to the natural interests of the people. Limits to growth is a conclusion, and a fate we should not accept. 200 years of capitalist progress has outpaced Malthus' pessimistic prophesies thus far, via the application of technology, and can continue to do so.

Perhaps capitalists are worried that say, 300 years down the line, civilisation powered by limitless clean energy might achieve some sort of post material equality! There are worse problems one could have!

It is interesting. I read this quote, then parts of the full article. There's something slightly Panglossian about it. It's reasonable to speculate, but not quite safe to assume, had the Empire persisted it would not have progressed beyond rural slavery - and every reason to imagine people who worshipped the sun and built aqueducts might have greeted the occurrence of scientific method more easily, which might ultimately have served the good, better. Still, things are not different than they are, and there were positive consequences following from the fall of the Roman Empire.

We are reciprocal. But that does not mean we are moral. It could and i think it is more a selfish thing (not bad) It’s more a benefit than being good. — Caleb Mercado

Thanks for your contributions but I think I've helped you all I can. I'm running a marathon for every step you take, you repeated a question I just answered, and I cannot read that sentence above. Frankly, I deserve better!

Yes. But why should i care about them if i get away with it? Or even if i don’t and have alot of “power” why should i care? — Caleb Mercado

You're right to note that individually, we are not compelled by the moral sense. But, firstly, we should consider that other people are moral beings, also imbued with a moral sense they are not compelled by either. They remember who reciprocates and withhold such favours accordingly in future! Also, there is value in understanding how to reason rightly in relation to fact and value. The point being that the supposed is/ought dichotomy is false; or a trivial observation on the difference between logic and reason. Logically, no list of facts infers a Value, but as Hume notes himself:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not."

Every system of morality! Are we not then required to explain so ubiquitous a mode of thought? Apparently, no! Instead Hume goes on to object that this is not logically justifiable. It's not, that's true - but we do not reason based solely on logic. We synthesise fact and value in the manner Hume observed. In my view, Hume's was an observation, misunderstood, misconstrued and magnified beyond all proportion in epistemic philosophy as a consequence of an anti-science bent that dates back to Galileo.

A lot makes sense here too me but human reason? What is so unreasonable for me to take and get everything i want whenever i want? Seems like the reasonable thing too do. — Caleb Mercado

Okay, but I doubt others will agree.

Moral sense by evolution might be wrong. Why is it right? — Caleb Mercado

Chimpanzees have morality of sorts. They share food, groom each other, and remember who reciprocates and withhold such favours accordingly in future. Human beings too evolved, and raised young, generation after generation. Primitive man was not an amoral brute.

For Hume, 100 years before Darwin, morality was an objectively existing set of God given laws, whereas for me, moral implication is an innate facet of human reason. For Hume, is and ought cannot be reconciled - which only holds true if they are considered external orders. Psychologically, we do this all the time.

I don’t know. Science deals with facts. It doesn’t tell us how to act. We all like batman. We go watch him at cinema and we know that he is a hero. He is a representative of who you should be. Not entirely but you get my point. You don’t go rooting for the bad guys usually. This is a form of truth that is outside science. It tells you who you should be, how you should act. I think we more need to know how to act and figure out who we can be. I think that will help us alot. Not denigrating science on any level. — Caleb Mercado

I've never had Batman used to explain the is/ought dichotomy before. Most people refer to David Hume (1711-1776.) Hume noted this disparity between fact and value, but in light of modern knowledge, it doesn't hold up. Human beings are imbued with a moral sense by evolution, such that - we cannot look at a list of facts without seeing the moral implications. It may be logically correct that no list of facts necessitates any particular value, but human understanding is a synthesis of fact and value. And how can we do what's right if we do not first acknowledge what's true?

This is just a friendly discussion. You have to realize that everybody sees the world differently. It's what makes life interesting. — synthesis

No, I don't. I addressed this with the first line of the opening post. I'm right. If you disagree, you're wrong. We are not doing everybody gets a trophy! Evolution requires that organisms are correct to reality or are rendered extinct. Your stupidity is literally killing us!

I do understand what you are saying and from your point of view it makes perfect sense. Go with it. I choose to approach life differently, a path that has worked quite well for me. — synthesis

Your personal beliefs have no relevance to this discussion. Objecting to science as a basis to secure the future because it conflicts with your fond illusions is about the most selfish and psychotic thing I can imagine. The Church made a mistake that took 400 years to manifest. You've had it explained to you in real time, and still choose wrong. I can only suppose you are malicious.

Everybody has to find there own way in this world. The key is in believing in yourself 100% which is again why I have enjoyed speaking with you. — synthesis

Then you say something like this, and I can only suppose you're stupid. People don't make their own way in the world. We are part of society, which is organised in relation to religious, political and economic ideology as a basis for action. What is believed, dictates what actions are possible. Your personal beliefs are irrelevant. It is the survival of civilisations at stake here. Science is true, and if we don't recognise that at the societal level and act accordingly, humankind will become extinct.

Well, obviously somebody wasn't done with this conversation. — synthesis

I reviewed the conversation to learn what I can from it. I'm still trying to understand why you so persistently drove the conversation off topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was malicious. I think you know I care about this, and take pleasure from preventing me discussing it.

Humanity is the problem. No matter what issues science solves going forward, man's core issues remain. Until man learns how to deal with his psychological, philosophic/religious/spiritual issues, little changes (except, perhaps, life expectancy). — synthesis

Obviously implicit in synthesis' statement here is the suggestion that he has ...

deal[t] with his psychological, philosophic/religious/spiritual issues — synthesis

...but pages of discussion suggest glib disregard of the moral/spiritual condition of man. Rather, a hostile, malign, quite possibly sadistic attitude is suggested by the persistence with which synthesis drives a discussion intended to address the relations between science and sustainability, into the long grass of epistemic philosophy, by objecting on every subjectivist philosophical grounds western philosophy has devised over the past 400 years, to the idea that science has any truth value at all.

I stated very directly what this was about:

At its core I don't think my position is all that complicated. In the fewest and simplest words possible I think science is our best bet at a future. I don't think that rash or irrational - rather I think it rash that's not where we stake our trust. — counterpunch

Such that persistent derailing requires explanation other than the meaningful content of such arguments, which are weak and nonsensical compared to science's explanation for why the egg is sucked into the bottle. But also, these persistent objections, pages of them, are skipped between without any consistent assertion of belief:

I take the position that it is impossible to know these things but based on our limited knowledge and spartan mental capacity, I'd go short homo sapiens. — synthesis

Sceptical subjectivism, and misanthropy.

My sense of it is that we are but a temporary surface nuisance here on the planet and we should be leaving sooner than later. — synthesis

Nihilism.

Compared to what? Of all the intelligent beings that may occupy The Universe, let's just say that we're probably not near the top of the class. Our intelligence doesn't have a great deal to show for itself other than various forms of gadgetry (IMO) — synthesis

Sci-fi misanthropy.

"If you are indeed science-oriented, then you understand that using the past to predict the future (other than long-term trends, perhaps) is a slippery slope indeed. Much of what will determine the future has yet to take place." — synthesis

This is a take on an argument by Schopenhauer, that the future cannot be predicted from the past. He argues if you pick up a stone 100 times and drop it, you cannot be certain the 101st time, it will fall to the floor. The obvious error is that, we can and do make such predictions.

Philosophically, the argument suggests the future cannot be predicted with certainty, so prediction is not knowledge, and science is not truth. In the epistemological literature this is generally countered by the argument that knowledge is justified true belief, such that the reasonableness of the prediction, rather than the unreasonable certainty of the prediction is at issue.

All attempts to bring the discussion back to topic were consistently resisted, here with simple illogic, presumably drawing upon Absurdism, a philosophical response to nihilistic despair that maintains subjectivist disregard for objective realities:

Although Science does move, I believe a more accurate GPS might demonstrate that the movement is lateral. It (Science) simply goes from one absurd position to the next. The difference is the former has fallen from grace whereas the later is now all the rage (a process that can go on forever). — synthesis

It is an absurd assertion that science does not progress, and it's quite difficult to deal with - but ultimately, just like nihilism, absurdism upholds no value that requires one accept absurdism. It can be simply disregarded.

You say that truth is demonstrated by a "functional relationship" between knowledge, action, and consequence. You go on to say, it's true because it works. So, how is this different from those in the past who believed that it was the gods that made things work. Wasn't their rationale just as valid? There existed a solid relationship between knowledge, action, and consequence. Made perfect sense to them. And it was true (to them) because it worked! — synthesis

Are there religious sensitivities to acknowledging science as truth on the international level required to create a rationale to apply the technologies necessary to overcome the climate and ecological crisis?

With regard to my own cultural tradition, I'm quite up front about it. I think the Catholic Church made a mistake 400 years ago, and that science could have been welcomed theologically, and integrated into spiritual understanding and practice, such that scientific truth were invested with moral authority, and technology would have been developed and applied for more scientifically rational and moral reasons. It's not merely that we are denied the functional truth value of science that demonstrates the mistake, but by dint of reciprocated disdain, science renders a thousand years of tradition absurd.

St Augustine's view that rational and divine knowledge cannot be in conflict should have prevailed, Galileo should have been welcomed, and science should have occurred as the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation. But instead of an angel bearing a scientific cornucopia of technological miracles, science was rendered as Frankenstein! It needn't be. This is a philosophical error we could recognise, and correct, if only in regard to the technologies necessary to meet the existential threat of the climate and ecological crisis.

Your "existential crisis" is what you reap when you plant intellectually altered seeds. — synthesis

I think that's an insult. He's suggesting I'm imagining the climate and ecological crisis, now, after four pages of argument:

Worrying about the end of the world (no matter how this might come about) seems rather silly as this is the fate of all things (they come and go). This is not to disparage your magma theory, but should it not stand on its own instead of on the shoulders of baseless fears that have over-run the last two generations? — synthesis

So what I'm hearing is there's no truth, no future, no hope, but there's no climate change crisis, everyone is nuts, science is a lie, time is an illusion, everything is subjectively constructed, absurd and hopeless, and worrying about it is hopeless, because you can't know anything! And I'm hearing this from someone who claims to have:

deal[t] with his psychological, philosophic/religious/spiritual issues — synthesis

I wish to assure you that there is a comfortable psychological state possible upon accepting a scientific worldview; that many of the haunting shadows you seem to view from your perspective - are cast by very small objects as viewed from mine.

Our subjective experience of time is highly variable depending on mood and activity. Watching a good film hours pass in moments - whereas waiting ten minuets in the rain takes forever! All the while, the clock measures out the seconds relentlessly; while physically, causal energy events proceed entropically from before to after.

See you on another thread... — synthesis

Thanks for so ably, and persistently demonstrating the problem. Clearly, there's something very wrong with you, but after pages of discussion, I'm sorry to say, I'm no closer to understanding what the hell it is!

Humanity is the problem. No matter what issues science solves going forward, man's core issues remain. Until man learns how to deal with his psychological, philosophic/religious/spiritual issues, little changes (except, perhaps, life expectancy). — synthesis

As if the world by did not survive without man's science for 4.5B years and will somehow fail to manage without the same after we are but a footnote? You truly are a homer! — synthesis

You should believe whatever you choose to believe for whatever reasons you believe it is appropriate to believe things. Your reasons for believing things are obviously very different from the reasons science believes it is appropriate to believe things, but I would not ask you to adopt scientific epistemic standards as a personal philosophy. You should continue to believe whatever it is that has you wishing humankind extinct!

As stated previously, your reality is only true for a particular moment (in which we lack access). I will give you (that despite this inconvenient idea), we muddle along with our guesses, approximation, and other assorted attempts to make sense of our world, but this not what I am getting at, instead, to truly understand the transient nature of all things knowable places knowledge in another sphere. — synthesis

Well, clearly, you're one of those end consumers - believers of many wonderful things, who need hardly notice that science is saving the world, because science is true; for while that does imply what you believe is wrong, there's no need for you to do that math! Afterall, if you did the maths, you'd agree with the science!

Keep in mind that the biggest mistake people make (vis a vis other people) is assuming that their reality is shared (or worse, that it's universal). Then, they spend the rest of their lives attempting to convince everybody else that this is the case. — synthesis

I've paid attention to science all my life; since childhood, whenever it pops up in the media, or conversation - I pay attention, and so I understand science in a deeper sense than most. It's the psychological concept of 'life script' playing out in relation to a Jungian archetype chosen as a child. I wanted to be a spaceman. I do not imagine everyone wanted to be spacemen. But as you said earlier:

Reality (at any particular moment) NEVER changes. It is what it is. — synthesis

Reality is consistent and universal in nature on the macroscopic, causal scale we inhabit. Therefore, what is scientifically true, is true for me and you, and everyone else the same. You don't inhabit another reality because you believe something else. You may have paid attention to things other than science all your life, and so construe the world in other terms - that much, I wholly accept. But reality exists the same for you and for me - objective with regard to our particular perspectives.

You are staying within a specific frame of reference and saying this is the truth. I. OTOH, stray from the same and suggest that your truth very narrow and that there are as many potential truths as there are moments in time. — synthesis

You protest should any measure of truth be claimed for science, but look around at the technological miracles science surrounds us with, and explain how technology works if the principles upon which the technology is based do not truly describe reality?

Debate about the precise nature of truth is somewhat of an aside; yet integral to the question of where we place our trust in face of the impending existential crisis. Because science is objective with regard to particular interests, recognising the truth value of science creates a level playing field, and provides a strong rationale for what I believe, is the only viable long term solution, that is - harnessing massive clean energy from magma and tackling climate change globally, from the supply side.

In doing so we internalise the consequences of society without internalising the implications to society. We need not have less and pay more, tax this, and stop that to save the world. We can solve this problem going forward, in a way that's not possible for nations thinking solely in terms of their ideological identities and interests.

Science offers a trustworthy rationale beyond all respective ideologies, the implications of recognition of which can be legitimately limited to the systematic application of technologies necessary to a prosperous sustainable future, starting with magma energy, limitless clean electricity, as a basis for carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation, recycling, etc, and all before the end consumer - believer of many wonderful things, need even notice!

Reality (at any particular moment) NEVER changes. It is what it is. It is our thinking that changes as we are always attempting to catch-up with moments only visible in the rear-view mirror. — synthesis

Ironic, given that you've just been telling me how things will be in 500 years! How is that possible?

NASA launched a probe to slingshot out of earth's gravity, to encounter another planet, and slingshot around that to travel further. As a consequence, NASA had to know exactly where those planets would be in future - down to the meter, years in advance. Scientific understanding has predictive ability - such that it's simply false to suggest "we are always attempting to catch-up with moments only visible in the rear-view mirror."

Nothing in science that is thought to be true today will be in 500 years — synthesis

I disagree. Reality worked the same way 500 years ago as it does today. We didn't understand at all how it worked then, but we have a much better idea now, and because reality will be fundamentally the same 500 years from now, what is true now, will still be true in 500 years time.

In 500 years, we will know more. Physics may conceptualise reality in terms of a ToE (theory of everything) for example, but subsumed under that more highly generalised paradigm will be definite physical truths, like the second law of thermodynamics.

Consider this sequence: the Bible, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein - each developed systems of planetary motion, each one improving upon the others. Even the earliest has factual content - identifying correctly that there are planetary bodies in motion. That factual content is present throughout, unto the last. Copernicus, Newton, Einstein also identify, and account for planetary bodies in motion. So this is where I disagree with Khun: commensurability is implied by the consistent nature of the object of study, and that which is factual is carried forward by increasingly valid knowledge.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. You say that truth is demonstrated by a "functional relationship" between knowledge, action, and consequence. You go on to say, it's true because it works. So, how is this different from those in the past who believed that it was the gods that made things work. Wasn't their rationale just as valid? There existed a solid relationship between knowledge, action, and consequence. Made perfect sense to them. And it was true (to them) because it worked! — synthesis

Scientific principles explain how things work for real. Is that not miraculous? Have you ever felt that, understanding something scientific, you are part of something greater? I have. I don't know if God exists or not, but the control of reality we prayed for from God, is now in our hands. Because, and insofar as science is true, it can be applied to create technologies that work. Our prayers are answered - or our oblivion is assured, depending on who we are in relation to this potent truth. So far, nuclear weapons and climate change!

Not at all. The Truth is present. We simply cannot appreciate it. What we do is use our primordial intellect to guess and then refine those guesses over time. Wouldn't it make sense to take such into account? — synthesis

Okay, so now you've switched to reality as a Platonic ideal argument against science as truth. But here's your problem; science is a practical perspective on truth. It works insofar as knowledge corresponds to reality, so your distant idealism is false in practice. Reality exists, we experience it, and can form generalisable laws about how it works - and then apply those laws to create technologies that function. Why is that not sufficient proof for you? I don't know what it is you think needs taking into account. Your dismissive tone, perhaps?

You seek to hold science inadequate to an idea of truth as absolute and certain knowledge, to which science does not aspire. I make no such claim on behalf of science. Previously I've claimed science now constitutes an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality - we ought attend to should we wish to survive. For me, truth is demonstrated by a functional relationship between knowledge, action and consequence. It's true because it works! For you, it is omniscience or idiocy!

If you believe that to be the case, how can explain the fact that I have been able to be quite successful professionally? — synthesis

Strong social media strategy?

What I do takes a great deal of experience and skill. How would that be possible? — synthesis

They train monkeys to go into space!

Just consider the possibility that there might be other ways to go about doing things. — synthesis

Okay, if you'll consider the possibility that in theory, there is a scientifically rational, systematic application of technology that is the right way to go about a prosperous sustainable future - we might agree to differ on what we each mean by truth.

What case can you make that man has any really grasp of reality? That can man understand anything? Remember, just because you can make something work does not mean that you have any real understanding. — synthesis

I cannot explain it to someone who will not understand. And if you ask that question, then you demonstrate your refusal to understand. You reject any reasonable standard of knowledge short of omniscience. There's no further discussion possible. Indeed, how can you understand a word I'm saying? You don't know all the words!

Just the same, that doesn't mean that I have to buy into your reality (even though you think it is airtight). — synthesis

I do not agree with your assessment of the state and nature of knowledge. Science has really come together since the advent of the microchip; partly due to computers for communication, and complex calculation, but also all kinds of electronic equipment and sensors, such that now, science constitutes an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality - the 'truth value' of which is manifest, and should be obvious.

Technology based on scientific principles - works within a causal reality, and what is more the closer the technology approximates the scientific principle, the better the technology works. That's the functional 'truth value' of a scientific understanding of reality, that we can claim to the benefit of human affairs, starting by harnessing massive clean energy from magma, to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle etc. We make 'truth' manifest through our actions and reap the functional rewards.

Magma energy is the right thing; occurring as it does at the nexus of basic scientific facts about energy, and sustainability as a universal, near objective moral imperative. Physics dictates that massive clean energy is necessary to any sustainable future worth living in, and magma energy offers the greatest benefit at the least cost, with least disruption to the status quo.

Recognising the truth value of science provides the rationale to apply technology as suggested by a scientific understanding of reality, and so - you see why I am forced to dismiss your subjectivist, relativist, sceptical, nihilistic - rejection of truth and/or morality. It's not that I care particularly what you choose to believe, but that my approach to sustainability is based on the existence of an objective reality - of which we are reliably able to establish valid knowledge.

Do people ever choose to believe anything? We're born ignorant, gullible and exposed to culture that as children, we absorb uncritically. We can challenge those received beliefs, or not! It's easier not to. I have. I'm a philosopher. And you are saying to me, on a philosophy forum: "Don't challenge your received beliefs." Then what is philosophy?

I'm not a believer in the sense that I believe in deliberate ignorance of obvious questions. I'm a believer in the sense that I've questioned my beliefs to destruction, over and over until what I'm left with is the most rightful view I'm able to form. I have my limitations, but it seems to me we made a mistake in our relationship to science, and the key to the future is the flip side of that error - and it matters that those two things can be explained in the same terms. I believe that.

Were you not on a philosophy forum, I could gladly let it go at:

I understand what you are saying, but I choose to believe something else. — synthesis

I don't care what you personally choose to believe. I do not accost people in the street to force my philosophical views upon them. I appeal to reason, on a philosophy forum, and you say abandon reason? I have dealt with relativist, subjectivist, sceptical and nihilistic philosophies elsewhere. In general, for philosophical purposes - I find them misconceived justifications of a mistaken relationship to science, starting with Descartes unreasonable scepticism in search of an unreasonable certainty.

What could be worse than having the pressure of having the rest of humanity believe that you were the one who figured it out! — synthesis

I've thought about it, and these are my thoughts. More than that I cannot say. I can explain my reasons for believing what I believe, and my philosophy points to something external to me. My thoughts are either interesting to others, or they're not - but don't imagine they are a hair shirt to me. I'm hopeful in face of it all because, from what I find I must accept, it's possible to deduce a strong rationale for a clear plan of action to secure a prosperous sustainable future, consistent with maintaining freedom! Hurray!

That's me regaling! This is me off for a beer!

Again, I see what is. We are not worth saving, period. If things had been different...blah, blah, blah, pointless discussion. If I weren't me and if we weren't us has no value, we are what we are, and I don't think we are worth saving.

Your approach suggests that we are somehow "all wrong" due to the influence of the church, however, I suggest that far before the church intervened in anything, we were already "wrong". Welcome to humanity, we kinda suck. — Book273

I accept we are who we are. I've said many times we have to get there from here. In scientific terms, the molten interior of the earth contains massive base load heat energy, in places - within easy reach of drilling technology, that we could exploit on a monolithic scale to completely change the existential equation. Harnessing massive amounts of energy is the single most scientifically fundamental thing we could do, necessary to any kind of sustainable future worth having. I do not seek to convince you that existence is worthwhile; only that a prosperous sustainable future is possible.

I am assuming that is a rhetorical question? :) You need to take a step back and see this in its entirety. You seem overly preoccupied with saving everybody while failing to appreciate the transient nature of all things knowable. — synthesis

Synthesis, With all due respect further discussion is pointless. You're wrong and refuse to be corrected. It's not possible to establish any rational standard with you. Everything just falls through the big hole in the net. No truth - no point!

Although Science does move, I believe a more accurate GPS might demonstrate that the movement is lateral. It (Science) simply goes from one absurd position to the next. The difference is the former has fallen from grace whereas the later is now all the rage (a process that can go on forever). — synthesis

What the hell is wrong with you?

The fatal flaw in all prognostication is the assumption you know what the critical issues (to be confronted) will be. If you look back into history, you will see that this rarely (if ever) happens, and when it does, it's by mere chance. What happened to the ice age predicted in the 70's or any of the other absurd predictions that have been made in the last 50 years? — synthesis

It's a peculiarity of philosophy, I suspect, accustomed to appeal to the dustiest tome, to fail to recognise that science moves forward as a body of knowledge from a flurry of hypotheses toward more certain knowledge over time - such that "absurd predictions" later disproven as we falsify possibilities to zero in on knowledge, is exactly what we should expect to see.

This is why all the sages of the past, school the people to concentrate efforts on the present and let the future take care of itself. — synthesis

Wisdom is only wisdom until it becomes common sense.

Like I've mentioned previously, energy is the least of our worries. There is unlimited energy available. It's just a matter of reducing the cost which is what capitalism does better than anything else. And wealth is one thing, but man will never be guilt-free. When yo think about it, guilt might be the only thing there is more of in this world than energy! — synthesis

There is unlimited energy, but we do not have unlimited energy available for use yet. It needs to be developed, and there are balances of interests in doing so. I seek to show that it is technologically possible and philosophically correct, as a basis to humbly suggest the minimal necessary implication might be politically possible. Currently, we are being forced down a narrowing corridor by the climate and ecological crisis, but more energy would give us more time, and more choice going forward - including more discretion about how we ultimately transition.

I don't see current plans adding up. For example, from 2030 the UK intends to add the energy demand of 30 million cars to the national grid. Not all at once, obviously - there aren't enough charging points! But what if instead, efforts were focused on attacking the issue from the supply side by developing magma energy and using that to extract carbon from the atmosphere? It would be possible to continue driving cars longer, so decoupling infrastructure costs from climate ambitions, protecting economies overly reliant on fossil fuel revenues and giving them time to diversify, and so addressing the threat without guilting people into poverty.

My position is simple: Humanity, as a species, is not something I consider worth saving in it's current state. — Book273

Okay but you realise I suppose my argument suggests we come to this impasse as the consequence of a mistake - 400 years ago, in our relationship to science. The world would have been very different if not for this error, and you would be different too. It's very difficult to reconstruct 400 years of alternate history, but had science been welcomed and pursued as the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation, and had been imbued with divine/moral authority, it seems likely technology would have been developed and applied in accord with an emerging scientific understanding of reality while at the same time, science were woven into the fabric of politics and economics over centuries; ideas from which people draw their identities, purposes and values. Had that been so, you wouldn't be the misanthropic doom monkey you are - because of the "current state" the world is in! It shouldn't have been. That's the point.

my main problem is that I see what is. Not what could be, what was, what might be, etc. All the possibilities are grand, and very easy to get caught up in, so...don't do that. — Book273

I don't know what 'all the possibilities' refers to. I see a slim chance for a very particular, enormously beneficial possibility - that is, harnessing massive clean energy by drilling close to magma pockets in the earth's crust, lining the bore holes with pipes, and pumping water through to produce steam to drive turbines to produce massive amounts of clean electricity. It's a little 'out there' I guess, but I think it is viable from a technological standpoint. In my view, the molten interior of the earth is the only source of clean energy large, reliable and concentrated enough to meet our needs - plus, capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle. We cannot do all that on wind and/or solar power. It's not enough to take the edge off our carbon emissions. I'm suggesting we attack climate change and defeat it. It's an unlikely possibility, I accept that - but it would work.

If you are indeed science-oriented, then you understand that using the past to predict the future (other than long-term trends, perhaps) is a slippery slope indeed. Much of what will determine the future has yet to take place. Most importantly, if you do what you can to take care of the present, somehow the future seems to take care of itself, no? — synthesis

No! As I said earlier, we have to act in anticipation of the threat. Climate change will disrupt the economy - undermining our ability to address it. I can show that revolutions in energy production have preceded every great leap forward for human civilisation. Yet rather than leap forward, the prevailing plan seems to be to back down - tax this, stop that, pay more, have less. It will not work.

I am science oriented, and in those terms - it follows from the second law of thermodynamics that we need more energy, not less. To maintain any ordered state requires the expenditure of energy. The world could develop that energy from magma - and; do you not see the advantage of attacking the problem from the supply side - it would not be necessary to stop this, tax that, pay more and have less - to address climate change. All the social, political and economic turmoil a 'limits to resources' green approach implies can be sidestepped; because in fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them, and the technology exists to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle. We could be much wealthier in future - and free from guilt by design.

where's the proof that depression doesn't serve a useful purpose?
— counterpunch

If we take a gene's-eye-view, then a predisposition to depression frequently did serve a useful purpose in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. See the literature on the Rank Theory of depression:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032718310280?via%3Dihub
But this is no reason to conserve the biology of low mood. Depression is a vile disorder. — David Pearce

I've just been looking at a list of genetic disorders, and I'm not as happy as I might be wasn't one of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders#:~:text=Full%20genetic%20disorders%20list%20%20%20%20Disorder,%20%201%3A50%2C000%20%2035%20more%20rows%20

There's a strong moral case for eliminating disorders like these. I don't see the strong moral case, and great potential hazard in genetically jacking up natural opiate production by the brain. People act based on how they feel - and while that isn't always super, we've survived thus far.